MORE LEVIATHANS IN THE LURE OF MAMMON

The original Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

"Leviathan in the lure of Mammon: limits of political Islam in Turkey" is the title of a recent article on the Open Democracy website by Kerem Oktem - http://www.opendemocracy.net/kerem-oktem/leviathan-in-lure-of-mammon-limits-of-political-islam-in-turkey In this, Oktem uses the context of "Western-style liberal democracy's" apparent increasing loss of appeal to discuss the current political economy of Turkey. However, the article's rather brilliant title, invoking the "Leviathan" of Thomas Hobbes, might also be used to describe the state of global and state capitalism as this manifests in so-called Western-style liberal democracies.

The present controversy around US drugs giant Pfizer's - http://www.pfizer.com - take-over bid for the UK's Astrazeneca - www.astrazeneca.co.uk - seems to illustrate that there are a lot more Leviathans in the lure of Mammon around the world. Indeed this metaphor seems to sum up very well not only the whole dynamic of global capitalism, epitomised in the financial system - much of which in Britain is still state-owned - but also what Oktem describes as "authoritarian power regimes" of the kind that can be found, not only in countries like Turkey, but in the relationship dynamic between the private and public sectors here in the UK.

The relationship between the pharmaceuticals sector and the British National Health Service (NHS) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service - provides a very good example of this.  As one of the world's largest employers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers - the NHS has always invited comparisons with other public and private sector Leviathans, such as China's People's Liberation Army and US supermarket giant Walmart. However, it is in its more recent role as a commissioning and partnership body for private sector services that the lure of Mammon has really come in to play.

In short, the NHS is not only a global cash cow for the pharmaceuticals sector, both homegrown and international, but the partner of choice for a variety of companies providing a whole range of contract services through the so-called Private Finance Initiative (PFI) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative All this offers the prospect of a potential feeding frenzy of positively Olympian proportions for Leviathans in the lure of Mammon, and it is hardly surprising, therefore, that our esteemed National Health Service should have provided a centrepiece of London 2012's  opening ceremony. Roll on the Great Global Grab!

THE GLOBAL GRAB FOR LAND AND RESOURCES

The sale of farmland belonging to the troubled UK Co-operative Group - http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/03/co-op-farms-sale-chinese-buyers - has highlighted the global grab for land and resources, of which Britain is both an origin and destination: "In a similar way to central London property, farmland is now seen as a safe bet by foreign investors – while the average value of prime residential property in London has grown by 135% over the last decade, the value of prime British farmland has increased 273% to an average price of £8,500 per acre, according to Savills." In this case, it is the prospect of a single Chinese buyer for the Co-op's 17 000 hectares (44 000 acres) which is cause for concern. However, research by Land Matrix - www.landmatrix.org - shows that the British are just as active in international land investment. An extensive article in the United States Monthly Review - http://monthlyreview.org/2013/11/01/twenty-first-century-land-grabs - by Fred Magdoff, professor emeritus of plant and soil science at the University of Vermont, covers the history of the land grab from a global perspective. However, whilst the present focus of attention is agricultural land, this should be seen in the larger context of a grab for the earth's resources. It is to be hoped, therefore, that environmental and natural resource economics, as well as land economy, will be on the preferred curricula of the International Student Initiative for Pluralist Economics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Student_Initiative_for_Pluralism_in_Economics - whose open letter (from the Glasgow Unversity Real World Economics Society) in today's Guardian calls for their subject to respond to "the multi-dimensional challenges of the 21st century - from financial stability to food security and climate change".

ECONOMIC HETERODOXY SOUNDS GOOD TO ME

After reading Ha-Joon Chang's article, "Economics is too big a deal to leave to the experts" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/economics-experts-economists, in today's edition of The Guardian, I decided to check out his Wikipedia entry:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang This states that: "Chang's contribution to heterodox economics started while studying under Robert Rowthorn, a leading British Marxist economist, with whom he worked on the elaboration of the theory of industrial policy, which he described as a middle way between central planning and unrestrained free market. His work in this area is part of a broader approach to economics known as institutionalist political economy which places economic history and socio-political factors at the centre of the evolution of economic practices." Co-incidentally, after my post of yesterday, I was reminded of an excellent book on the subject of spatial economics called "The Geography of De-Industrialisation"* edited by Robert Rowthorn, that sadly now seems to be out of print. Greater heterodoxy on the subject of the spatial economy would certainly be very welcome.

* Some of the themes of this book are taken up in a recent publication entitled "The Economic Geography of the UK" http://www.amazon.co.uk/Economic-Geography-UK-Neil-Coe/dp/1849200904, part of whose introduction is available here. http://www.uk.sagepub.com/upm-data/35376_01_Coe_&_Jones_Ch_01.pdf

THE STATE OF SPATIAL ECONOMICS WE'RE IN

"Rerum Causas Cognoscere" or "To Know the Causes of Things" is the motto of the London School of Economics and Political Science (known as the LSE) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics - whose rather attractive coat of arms is shown above. Incidentally, I am also a big fan of beavers who are amongst the great builders of the animal kingdom, and construction is one of the key themes of this post.  Moreover, the LSE has an excellent mission statement, to use a modern expression, and one whose aspirations I very much support. Indeed it would serve as a fine motto for all higher education research institutions. Unfortunately, the wider ambitions of the UK universities sector, much of which now resembles a property development enterprise, rather than a fountain of knowledge, often work against these loftier aims.

I was reminded of this academic state of affairs earlier this week, when trying to post a comment about an article on some LSE spatial economics research on the Planning Resource website - please see http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1291801/discriminatory-green-belt-policies-causing-housing-affordability-crisis-says-lse-professor - I found myself suddenly censored. Therefore, having been cut short and fearing further censorship, I shall endeavour to answer the question of a fellow Planning Resource contributor on my own blog: thank goodness for Google! In response to my expression of concern about the impartiality of LSE research, due to the funding regime for this and similar institutions, a  Lawrence Revill (whom I suspect is a planning consultant) asked: "Just what, precisely, has that got to do with the Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography and his views on the Green Belt? Please show some perspective." Indeed I will, Mr Revill, in the following account. "Rerum Causas Cognoscere"!

The Emeritus Professor, and member of the LSE's Spatial Economics Research Centre, in question is Paul Cheshire  http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/profile.aspx?KeyValue=p.cheshire%40lse.ac.uk The Spatial Economics Research Centre  http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/SERC/about/default.asp -  describes its mission thus: "Economic prosperity in the UK is very unevenly distributed across space. Tackling these persistent disparities is a key policy objective. The Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC) aims to provide a rigorous understanding of the nature, extent, causes and consequences of these disparities, and to identify appropriate policy responses." This sounds highly admirable so it comes as a surprise to me that Professor Cheshire's research article* - http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp417.pdf - should advocate policies likely to exacerbate persistent regional disparities in economic prosperity.

So let's look at what the Professor had to say. The basic thesis is that not enough housing has been built nationally, and, particularly, in the Home Counties around London in the past 20 years. Leaving aside the national picture, about which his article doe not really concern itself, the real bete noir for Cheshire is the capital's green belt of which he says: "What SERC research has shown is that the only value of greenbelts is for those who own houses within them (gibbons et al, 2011). What greenbelts seem to be is a very British form of discriminatory zoning, keeping the urban unwashed out of the Home Counties - and of course helping to turn houses into investment assets rather than places to live in". Given that the whole modus operandi of British economic policy has been driven by rentier capitalism during the period in question, this seems to be a remarkably naive statement from an "Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography" at the LSE!

Indeed, my censored comment on the Planning Resource website highlighted a "popular" post from the LSE SERC's blog - http://spatial-economics.blogspot.co.uk/ - entitled "How many French people live in London?" which opens thus: "According to the BBC London is now France's sixth biggest city: "The French consulate in London estimates between 300,000 and 400,000 French citizens live in the British capital" which compares to city populations as follows: Paris - 2.3m; Lyon - 488,000; Marseille - 859,000; Toulouse - 447,000; Nice 344 000." What this illustrates is the increasing globalisation of London since the 1990s. In terms of capital flows, London vies with New York as the world's most globalised city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city The capital has become a magnet for international property investment and uber wealthy people, as well as a preferred destination for an increasingly globalised workforce. This has been the major factor in the increasing cost and shortage of London housing.

Although I have suggested that Professor Cheshire is naive, I do not believe this to be the case. The LSE and other British universities have capitalised on the attraction of London for international students. Moreover, there does seem to have been something of a "London effect" as foreign students spread around the country and universities court them with increasingly high-specification (and expensive) campuses. It is quite possible that the LSE has its sights on a new greenfield site in the Homes Counties, with supporting development, including possibly a world-class golf course. For my own part, I shall be delighted if the main activity of London's green belt remains intensive agriculture. As an economic geographer, the Emeritus Professor should know very well that this is one the most suitable roles for it.

*  Some of the claims in this article (eg as much land given over to golf courses as housing in England) were subsequently challenged in a BBC radio 4 More or Less programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b044jh75

A CONTEXT FOR INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Having signed up for a Coursera Mooc (Massive Open Online Course) entitled "Understanding Russians: Contexts of Intercultural Communication" https://www.coursera.org/course/russians I've been wondering whether this course may be too highbrow and time-consuming, on the one hand, or the ideal opportunity to engage in a timely critical discourse, given the Ukraine-Russia crisis, on the other. Fortunately the need to make an immediate decision is unnecessary because an email from course leader, Mira Bergelson from the Higher School of Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_University_%E2%80%93_Higher_School_of_Economics, earlier today informed me that: "May 1 through May 9 is Russian big holiday time. That’s why we had to postpone the course for two weeks altogether." Let's hope this message is also received by Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine. A week's break to celebrate "The Day of Spring and Labour", which might extend to the release of peace observers and others recently taken prisoner, would be very welcome just now.

NUCLEAR POWER: IS THERE NO TURNING BACK?

The above graphic is taken from an article on the Aljazeera website this week - http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/04/antagonising-iran-strategic-mis-201442161724450258.html - by Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a professor of North American Studies and dean of the Faculty of World Studies at the University of Tehran. This came to my attention, incidentally, via Iranian Vice President Massoumeh Ebtekar's "Persian Paradox" blog yesterday (please see my earlier post). Aside from offering an interesting back story to the present controversy surrounding Iran's civil nuclear programme, the article has a wider relevance for international energy policy in an age of so-called transition to sustainable development.

Professor Marandi's article opens as follows:

"Even though it was a major exporter of crude oil and held some of the world's largest natural gas reserves, Iran made a compelling case over half-a-century ago that it needed, almost immediately, to produce an additional 20,000 megawatts of electricity by constructing 23 nuclear power plants. At the same time, Iran's government made the case that the country needed to acquire the capacity to enrich uranium in order to fabricate the reactor fuel for such an ambitious programme.

Western governments eagerly endorsed these arguments, praising Iran's then Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's ambition to rapidly modernise Iran while overlooking the reality that he was presiding over a ruthless dictatorship and diverting much needed capital to purchase massive amounts of weapons from the US and other Western countries. And so, during the 1960s and 1970s, billions of dollars were invested in establishing an Iranian nuclear programme and training thousands of Iranian nuclear experts in the West - until Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution replaced the monarchy with an Islamic Republic..."

In short, Iran's energy pathway has very much reflected that of Western nations, although a number of these, including the United States and, most recently, Germany, have moved away from civil nuclear power in the period since the 1980s for reasons of cost and safety associated with both generation and waste disposal. Meanwhile, other countries, notably Russia and China, have forged ahead with nuclear development programmes notwithstanding major accidents at Chernobyl in the Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union) during 1986 and Fukushima in Japan following the earthquake and Tsunami of 2011. It should be noted that Iran is also located in a major earthquake zone:  http://www.ibtimes.com/iran-earthquake-strikes-near-bushehr-nuclear-power-plant-1489402

The current popularity of nuclear power has much to do with the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide that are the major contributor to the green house effect associated with global warming. However, the nuclear option also offers the prospect of national energy security for countries increasingly concerned about their dependency on foreign gas supplies. Whilst Iran, "with the world's second-largest proven reserves of natural gas", as Professor Marandi notes in his article, does not have such concerns, much of Europe is reliant upon Russian supplies, and this is a key factor in the current Ukrainian crisis.

Nevertheless, it should be remembered that the accident at Ukraine's Chernobyl plant was probably the single most important event in turning the world against nuclear power in the last decade of the twentieth century. Moreover, the former Soviet regime's attempt to cover up the seriousness of this incident is widely cited as a major contributory factor in its demise only five years later. The problem with nuclear energy is that the conseqeunces can be very serious indeed if things go wrong. Iran, along with the rest of the world, would be wise to remember this.

THE HISTORY OF A VERY IRANIAN REVOLUTION

A young woman protests in Iran's so-called "Green Revolution" (for greater democracy) in 2009. The country is currently experiencing a wave of environmentalism, in part supported by Iranian Vice President Ebtekar

I had a look at - as distinct from a full reading of - Michael Axworthy's "Revolutionary Iran" over the Easter Bank Holiday. Whilst the book is now on my "To Read" list, just thought I'd share a few thoughts on a history which has just been brought bang up to date by Penguin (an updated paperback version came out this spring).

However, let me first caveat my comments by saying that I have never visited Iran and met very few Iranians. Other reviewers have described Axworthy as an "Iranophile" and some people may not share all his views. Nevertheless, the book resonates with my own limited knowledge and experience.

Ironically, perhaps most of all for the Americans, Iran has been an unexpected beneficiary of the  former United States-led "War on Terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan (countries where previous regimes and extremist groups had received US assistance before they turned against their western benefactors). As Axworthy points out: "The Iranians helped the coalition powers to set up the new democratic structures in both countries, though this has often gone unacknowledged. Instead, Iran has perversely been blamed for the fact that the removal of these enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan has enhanced Iran's regional (ie Middle Eastern) influence".

Although Axworthy locates the Iranian Revolution of 1979 - and the removal of American together with other western powers from the country - within the great revolutionary trajectory which started in France and moved through Russia and thence to Tehran, I see Iran more as the location of the 20th century's third great revolution, following on from the Soviet and the Chinese. The question will be whether the key religious dimension of "Revolutionary Iran" will be sustained in the future, or whether Iran, like Russia and China, will be overcome by the same kind of secular materialism which has engulfed these and most other countries. Only time will tell.

For the 2014 Penguin edition of  "Revolutionary Iran" see  http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141046235,00.html
Iranian Vice President Massoumeh Ebtekar's "Persian Paradox" Blog can be found at  http://ebtekarm.blogspot.co.uk/

THE EUROPEAN UNION IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

The Berlin-based Iversity's Mooc (Massive Open Online Course) on the subject of the European Union in Global Governance starts next week. This course could hardly be more timely given current events in Ukraine. For information please see - https://iversity.org/courses/the-european-union-in-global-governance

UKRAINE CRISIS MAY BE EUROPEAN OPPORTUNITY

German Chancellor Angela Merkel meets Britain's Queen Elizabeth 27.2.2014

There was an interesting interview with former Soviet President Khrushchev's grand daughter Nina Khrushcheva on BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight Programme last week. Khrushcheva, a professor of international affairs in the United States, said that Russia and Ukraine should ultimately share the same aim: to become part of Europe. Instead, she argues in a recent article,"Putin takes perverse pride in his persistent efforts to alienate the West" - http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nina-l--khrushcheva-asks-whether-vladimir-putin-will-exploit-ukraine-s-disarray-to-reclaim-lost-territory

There does indeed seem to be something about the Olympics which raises Mr Putin's geo-political testosterone. Russia's invasion of South Ossetia co-incided with the 2008 Beijing Games and the latest occupation of strategic facilities in Crimea has taken place in the midst of the Sochi Winter Olympics (with the Paralympics due to begin later this week). A report in today's Guardian suggests that Angela Merkel felt that Putin had lost touch with reality in telephone conversation about Crimea: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-vladimir-putin-angela-merkel-russian

However, the ever-sensible Mrs Merkel has been careful not to over-react to the situation. Instead, according to The Guardian article, ".... she suggested to Putin that the EU send a fact-finding mission to Ukraine. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is also meeting to discuss Ukraine on Monday (today) in Vienna, could be charged with the mission, diplomats said." Mrs Merkel also pressed the Russian President "to back down from his invasion of Ukraine and occupation of the Crimean peninsula."

Both Merkel and Putin share the same Soviet Bloc hinterland, but whilst the German Chancellor has moved inexorably on from the GDR, Russia's President still regrets the passing of the USSR. Fortunately, "cometh the hour, cometh the woman", and Mrs Merkel, the undoubted Queen of Europe, is the contemporary political leader most likely to be able to transform the current crisis in Ukraine into an opportunity for "The Greater European Project". This is bigger than the present (or presumed) EU configuration, and may be something to which even Britain could sign up.

CRIMEA - THE SPECTRE OF NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV

Image: www.pushkinpress.com

I have just finished reading "The Spectre of Alexander Wolf" by Gaito Gazdanov -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaito_Gazdanov - a Russian emigre writer of Ossetian heritage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetia The book deals with the subject of fate, and how an earlier event can unexpectedly determine the future.

So it is that the fate of Crimea - a gift of former Soviet President Khrushchev to the Ukraine - now seems bound up with that of its Russian benefactor.  The transfer of Crimea was framed as a goodwill gesture to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's merger with tsarist Russia, although the actual politics were rather more complicated: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/02/25/separatism_in_ukraine_blame_nikita_khrushchev_for_ukraine_s_newest_crisis.html

Recent events in the Ukraine may now lead to the gift's forcible return to Russian control, notwithstanding an "urgent diplomatic offensive" by Western governments: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10669850/William-Hague-demands-Russia-respect-Ukraines-territory-as-Kremlin-tightens-grip-on-Crimea.html

BRITAIN NEEDS NEW LAND USE PLANNING REGIME

UK Prime Minister with troops on recent floods tour of duty (Source: Number 10 Twitter account)

The UK Government's response to the flooding crisis followed a typical sequence: inadequate action (crisis, what crisis?), followed by that sinking feeling, panic and blame allocation, and, finally, a sort of belated event management exercise with the army called in to help out. Such criticism may seem unkind, but it should be remembered that since coming to power in 2010 Mr Cameron and his colleagues have conducted a ruthless offensive against the planning system: one of the key mechanisms for reducing the impact of extreme weather events associated with climate change.

In short, Britain needs more and not less planning, and in Southern England, most especially, a return to comprehensive and integrated land use management of the kind found in other densely populated countries like the Netherlands is required. I'm delighted that Mr Cameron has called upon Dutch engineers for advice in dealing with the current floods. Now he and his colleagues should ensure that the best environmental practice from North West Europe is adopted in the English planning system. If current ministers and civil servants are incapable of rising to this challenge, they should be replaced.

UK GOVERNMENT'S LITTLE LOCAL DIFFICULTIES

Image: flood warnings across southern Britain

David Cameron is a modern British leader - in his own words the "Heir to Blair" -  who likes big ideas and dislikes bad news. Like Blair, his government is filled with a monstrous regiment of yes-people, who eshew common sense policies in favour of those which appear to proffer personal advancement. It is no surprise, therefore, that Britain is currently beset by what "One Nation" - now the brand of Ed Miliband's Labour Party - Conservative Harold Macmillan called "little local difficulties."

Foremost of these is "Floodgate". Climate change is not official Conservative Party policy, and, alas, Mr Cameron, along with many others, now finds himself in the position of early medieval English (and Scandinavian) King Canute who famously "set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings (and ill-founded government policies), for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws" according to chronicler Henry of Huntington  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great#Ruler_of_the_waves

Then there is the prospect of a Disunited Kingdom, and according to the Guardian newspaper today our Olympian "Prime Minister David Cameron will use the scene of Team GB’s success at London 2012 as the backdrop for his warning against Scottish independence."All this, as Russian President Vladimir Putin opens the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi: an event which Mr Cameron will be not be attending. Nor will he attend to calls from Scottish leader Alex Salmond and his colleagues to engage in a debate north of the border. For in the great modern line of political actor-managers, namely Blair and Heir, Mr Cameron will never place himself in a position where he is likely to be upstaged. For whom "The Scottish Play" will prove unlucky is, of course, another little local difficulty.

NEW PARLIAMENT OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLES

Awakening towards the end of 2013, I realised that a certain political correctness had afflicted me in recent months, repressing my spirits and satirical proclivities. To set me to rights, I was later visited by the spirit of the seasonal e-pantomine who advised me to set down the following synopsis.

The events of this tale occur at an unspecified time in the future. Former British prime minister Tony Blair and Lord Peter Mandelson have acquired a mysterious life-prolonging elixir and now co-habit the Palace of the Parliament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Parliament - in Bucharest. Formerly the seat of Romania's Soviet-era president Nicolae Ceaușescu, the world's largest civilian building now accommodates the eastern head quarters of the European Union, including a unified presidency that has taken over the role of EU Parliament supremo. To add to this, President Blair is also a cardinal of the Roman Catholic church with ambitions to de-secularise the European Project and create a new Holy Roman Empire. Fortunately, however, these aspirations are beyond the scope of this particular synopsis.

Readers are no doubt wondering how the events I have described came about, and the story is marvellously straightforward. Awakening one morning a British prime minister of the near future took it upon herself to transform the country's unsustainable welfare state and wider public sector. Her government went, somewhat like the Starship Enterprise, where no recent British administration had dared go before and dismissed vast swathes of the kleptocracy, including those on the payroll of the state media, which had grown obese at the public expense. In short, the nation's finances were radically over-hauled, along with the benefits system. The effects of this were nothing short of miraculous. Seeing their mistress and her comrades living within their means, the British public soon followed suit. Those unaccustomed to such a lifestyle started to migrate in vast numbers - a subject I shall deal with later - and the country assumed a state of good governance never before experienced in its history. In short, a London banker's word was his bond, and not someone else's.

Unfortunately whilst Albion was liberated from financial repression and the other ills of a nation living beyond its means, the so-called "New British Problem" was exported to other parts of Europe as the engine of the unreal economy, with its propensities for public maladministration, property speculation, booms and busts, and labour market distortions relentlessly moved eastwards. Soon the citizens of Eastern Europe were complaining of similar evils to those their British counterparts had once done, including mass migration by Western Europeans, particularly from over-crowded areas in Southern England, and accompanying benefits tourism. Meanwhile, a Campaign to Protect Rural Eastern Europe, or CPREE, was established amidst clamorous support for wholesale importation of the early 21st century British planning system.

At this point, a spiritually ascended cadre of enlightened European leaders, including Vaclav Havel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Havel , took it upon themselves to instigate the second coming of Angela Merkel, who restored order and admitted Ukraine to the greater EU family.

COSSACK HORSEMAN AND KIEV PRO-EU PROTEST

CO-OP DEBACLE: THE FIFTH LABOUR OF MILIBAND

In the good old days, financial scandals mostly happened to Labour whereas the Conservatives were prone to sexual improprieties. Enter the larger than life figure of former Reverend Paul Flowers, doyen of ethical banking, amongst other things, and a man able to bestride this traditional political divide like a colossus, whilst bringing the Methodist Church in to disrepute at the same time. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Flowers_%28banker%29 Naturally, British media of all political persuasions have enjoyed a field day and foreign journalists have flocked to our shores to share this spectacle of ethical deflowerment around the globe. Britain is widely regarded abroad as a nation of hypocrites, although most of our politicians and wider governing elite, including the prime minister, seem blissfully unaware of this for much of the time, and for many foreigners the Flowers debacle story will have shown our country in what they believe to be its true colours.

However, whilst the role of the former Reverend Flowers, assisted it has to be said by many others from ruling elite, in the downfall of the Co-operative Bank may be a national embarrassment - whilst some have liked his antics off-stage to the US crime drama "Breaking Bad" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad  - the real lessons of this particular episode in British public life must be learnt most of all by Labour Party Leader Ed Miliband. Mr Miliband inherited what can only be described as "The Labours of Hercules" when he took over leadership of the party in 2010 and the task of cleaning-up after Paul Flowers, as well as other notables like Ed Balls, may be likened to "the Fifth Labour" or the cleansing of the Augean stables - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augeas  This is a chance for the Leader of the Opposition to demonstrate that he can rid himself of the legacy of financial incompetence inherited from the Blair-Brown Labour governments by appointing a new Treasury team. Failure to seize the opportunity could well spell an end to Mr Miliband's ambitions to be prime minister.

HORSE MEAT: DAVID STARKEY ON PRINCESS ANNE

The Duchess of York and Sir David Starkey in The Tatler magazine

Let me preface this post by saying that I love horses and good satire in that order. I also rather like Sir David Starkey, have some respect for Princess Anne and no particular objection to the Duchess of York (of whom nor more shall be written here). Nevertheless, it's fair to say that all three royals - Starkey, after all, is a historian of the monarchy - bring some controversy to the table.

So it was last week when Princess Anne used her speech at a World Horse Welfare event to suggest that eating horses may be good for their health. Now horse welfare is a complex subject which I do not propose to discuss in detail here, save to say that management of the equine population through appropriate breeding (including its prevention) practices is fundamental to this. End of life management is also a key issue and Princess Anne has done no harm in drawing attention to this. It should also be said that World Horse Welfare and similar charities do some excellent work in dealing with a range of problems facing equine populations in the UK, as well as in less developed countries where many animals labour and die in the most difficult of circumstances.

It was in to this uncomfortable discourse that Sir David Starkey too lept last week, when he suggested on the BBC Radio 4 panel show "Any Questions?" that Princess Anne looked like a horse - a comment that I'm sure the good lady would take as a compliment - and, with more than a touch of irony, that her advocacy of horse meat consumption revealed an unexpected "satirist".

Of course, it was Sir David and not Her Royal Highness who had spotted a satirical opportunity and chose to exploit this to the discomfiture of his more politically correct panel contestants and their audience. Likening Princess Ann's comments to Jonathan Swift's famous satire "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick"*, Starkey went on to debunk her suggestion. In doing so, he returned the issue of horse meat consumption to a wider welfare context, thereby displaying some deft satirical footwork, which was unfortunately lost on his companions from across the politically correct spectrum.

Instead, Sir David Starkey brought ire upon himself from those who missed his ironic analogy and interpreted his comments as sexist. Although the subsequent media indignation was not so great as that sparked by Princess Anne herself, it was nonetheless significant, with the Huffington Post and its followers on Twitter getting into a considerable huff over the matter.

What all this reveals is that rational debate around challenging issues is increasingly difficult in an age of so-called emotional intelligence, and that it is no longer just North Americans who lack a sense of irony. With contemporary sensibilities so easily offended on these and a whole range of other matters it is hardly surprising that public discourse in Britain is in such a parlous state.

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

WHO'S HOLDING UP THE CHILCOT REPORT?

In some respects the circumstances leading to and surrounding the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War are the opposite of those associated with more recent investigations into security leaks and media hacking. For at the heart of the Chilcot deliberations is not an explosive release of intelligence through illegitimate channels but rather an absence of information, currently reflected in the withholding, for reasons which are far from clear, of the inquiry's long overdue final report.

In a letter to the Prime Minister of 4th November this year, the official Chilcot website - www.iraqinquiry.org.uk - leads us to believe that the cause of the report's delay is due to the "Maxwellisation process". According to Wikipedia this "is a procedure in British governance where individuals due to be criticised in an official report are sent details of the criticism in advance and permitted to respond prior to publication. The process takes its name from the newspaper owner Robert Maxwell. In 1969, Maxwell was criticised in a report by the Department of Trade and Industry as "unfit to hold the stewardship of a public company". Maxwell took the matter to court where the DTI were said by the judge to have "virtually committed the business murder" of Maxwell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwellisation

However, for those who might infer from the above reference that it is the deceased newspaper mogul who is responsible for holding up publication of the Chilcot report, I can say quite categorically that this is not the case. Instead blame has been cast upon Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Heywood - who has apparently vetoed publication of documents supporting the main report.

Sir Jeremy's apparent action has led to a flurry of media coverage and a former Labour Foreign Secretary Lord Owen has requested that the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling - take charge of the matter. Meanwhile, the Independent newspaper claims in an exclusive today that it is the United States government who are now holding up publication of the long-awaited Chilcot report, although this has subsequently been denied by sources there.

NATION IN GRIP OF NEW WITCH HYSTERIA

No doubt I'm not alone in starting to feel sorry for Rebekah Brooks; even if  I don't regard the latest cover of Private Eye to be in bad taste. The idea that the police should try to prevent its sale by a street vendor near the Old Bailey, where Mrs Brooks in currently on trial for phone hacking and corruption amongst other things, seems ridiculous. Nevertheless, I do think the nation has become gripped by a sort of witch hysteria, and what better day than Halloween to discuss this subject.

Mrs Brooks has wielded much power in her day, and many may be surprised that her secret consort was only former Downing Street spin doctor Andy Coulson and not the Prince of Darkness himself. However, her main crime now, it seems to me, is to be a non-establishment figure who has been dropped by former powerful friends as fast as a red hot poker. The lady herself, I suspect, may regret that her talents weren't sort out by the security services where her actions would have been rewarded.

Indeed, had Mrs Brooks made a career of espionage, supervising acts of surveillance and other nefarious activities, she may well have landed a peerage. Instead, in what has been described as "the trial of the century" she stands accused of offences which may have been common practice in the media, and, dare I suggest, other walks of public life. Like earlier witch hunters, the latest ones "protesteth too much", in the hope, no doubt, of hiding their own dark secrets.

CHINESE NUCLEAR POWER?: NO THANKS!

 A recent BBC satirical panel show hosted by Rory Bremner asked the question: "Who owns Britain?" The answer was largely foreign companies and governments. One wonders then why there is so much fuss about European Union regulations. Personally, I would prefer the country was run from Brussels than Beijing. Moreover, if the name Angela Merkel was ever to appear on my ballot paper, I would certainly vote for her ahead of any serving British politician, even the Green MP Caroline Lucas.

For whilst the German Chancellor has managed to preside over her country's phasing out of nuclear power, following the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, the British government has carried on regardless with the promotion of new reactors. We now learn that Chinese companies are to be allowed to hold a majority stake in these. Surely some mistake? When George Osborne and Boris Johnson descended on Beijing this week, many people thought their mission was to increase UK exports, following the example of Germany (who export more than they import from the Chinese). Instead, it seems that London is to become a Chinese off-shore zone and British energy policy - or that of England, Wales and Northern Ireland anyway - is to be run from Beijing.

What this demonstrates is that our Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Mayor of London are a pair of political opportunists par excellence. However, if anyone is looking to a change of UK government for national energy security and sustainability, there seems to be little prospect of this short of direct rule from Berlin. In the meantime, Britons may wish to ponder how they can prevent a couple of political Beau Gestes like Osborne and Johnson from ever becoming prime minister.

OLD SCHOOL BOYS ON BEIJING CHARM OFFENSIVE

Some light entertainment from the Blond Bombshell and Gorgeous George (looking slightly embarrassed) whilst this blog reflects on more serious matters for its next post...